tittle@ics.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore) (05/08/91)
Review by Cindy Tittle Moore
May 6, 1991
This article may be reproduced only in its entirety; which includes
preserving the author's name, this notice, and all addresses given at
the end. It is freely redistributable as long as all recipients are
entitled to do so likewise and no profit is made.
Copyright (C) 1991 by Cindy Tittle Moore
Against Our Will
by Susan Brownmiller
Bantam Books
ISBN 0-553-25895-8 (paperback)
Library of Congress: not given
All page numbers given are from the Bantam paperback version.
Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller is a disturbing, contradictory
work. It is misrepresented both by feminist and anti-feminist camps;
feminists lauding it as a quintessentially accurate portrayal of rape,
the anti-feminists denouncing it as a virulently anti-male piece of
propoganda. The book is neither.
I had heard so much contradictory commentary on this book; commentary
I was unwilling by and large to address since I had not read the book,
that I was hesitant about reading this. I was surprised to find, for
example, that a substantial portion of the book is composed of
compiling a history and background to rape. There is a solid amount
of documentary evidence collected here to illustrate the history of
rape. At the same time, the outrageous quotes that
anti-Brownmillerians trot out at every opportunity are present, and
not taken too much out of context. It is worth noting, however, that
the bulk of the outrageous quotes are found in the first chapter and a
half of the book. There are a few more isolated outrageous quotes
after the first chapter, but they are few and far between. The end
effect is that of a personal polemic tacked on to the beginning of an
otherwise solid piece of work.
I have serious qualms about portions of this book (which I will, of
course, expound on ;-), but I am willing to express admiration overall
for this book, which was a book written on rape published over 15
years ago. As such, it is a landmark work and the influence of its
thought appears in much of today's debates, even among those who most
ferociously denounce her. It is therefore an important book and
should be read. However, as we will see, it is not without serious
flaws.
The first two chapters discuss the ``mass psychology of rape'' in
which Brownmiller assesses the effect that the existence of rape has
on our society. As I have previously mentioned, this chapter is
riddled with outrageous generalizations. Even taking into account
that she is necessarily talking in generalities because she is
expounding on the overall effect of rape in our society, comments such
as
* ``[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process
of intimidation by which *all men* keep *all women* in a
state of fear.'' (pg 5)
[Then again, ``That *some* men rape provides a sufficient threat
to keep all women in a constant state of intimidation...'' (pg 229),
is in contrast to the page 5 quote. Italics are hers.]
* ``...one of the earliest forms of male bonding must have
been the gang rape of one woman by a band of maurauding
men.'' (pg 5)
* ``Female fear of an open season of rape, and not a natural
inclination toward monogamy, motherhood or love, was probably
the single causative factor in the original subjugation of
woman by man, the most important key to her historic dependence,
her domestication by protective mating [that is, mating with a
chosen male to protect her from the rest of the males]'' (pg 6)
are clearly beyond the bounds of generalizations. In the rest of the
second chapter she discusses the history of laws pertaining to rape,
showing how the definition of rape has remained very narrow, even, in
some ways, up to now. She also discusses what the various penalties
were. There are a number of interesting points brought up here,
unfortunately marred by the polemic so evident in these two chapters.
However, in successive chapters, Brownmiller devotes her time to
documenting the occurrences of rape under various circumstances. She
discusses rape during wartime, showing the extent of rape in war and
how it fits into the general paradigm of ``the conqueror''. She also
shows the extent to which rape is sidelined in these same histories:
the defeated side will have always been the one that raped (a good
example is the characterization of the Germans in the early parts of
WWI and WWII), or how the charges of rape were used for propoganda
purposes, or how historians commenting on the wars will ignore or
trivialize reported cases of rape (the time it took to actually verify
the ``Rape of Nanking'' by the Japanese and that its verification was
something of an accident anyway). Rape in the contexts of
revolutions, pogroms, and riots are explored. The function of rape in
slavery and in subjugation of the American Indians are also discussed.
All of which makes for intriguing reading. There is still a tendency
to generalize, but in these chapters, it is overwhelmed by the sheer
amount of data she brings to these discussions.
In addition, Brownmiller details a profile of the ``typical rapist'',
a discussion of gang rape, and the function of rape in prison. A
point that Brownmiller is at pains to illustrate throughout her book,
that rape is a crime of *violence* and not sex, is beautifully made in
this section. For example, in prison, the systematic raping of smaller
and more vulnerable men exactly parallels raping of women in society
at large. In gang rape, Brownmiller descends again into her anti-male
polemic, but an essential point is made: rape is very often committed
by two or more men on one woman and as such is very often planned
(debunking the myths of a single passion-inflamed man raping on the
spur of the moment). She discusses group dynamics in this section:
points are made here that I've seen elsewhere such as how it is easier
to commit violent acts as a group (think of the Rodney King/LA police
incident). Another point that she hammers home is that rapists are not
depraved, mentally ill, exceptional individuals. They are ordinary
men who are used to using violence to achieve their ends. Given that
society as a whole encourages violence in men (as opposed to women),
this has serious implications. A number of other myths about rape are
discussed in the sixth chapter and are exploded with the precise aid
of various studies done on rape and observations of police and other
statistics.
I considered the most interesting part of the book to be the
discussion on the way rape ought to be treated in court. She first
argues that we need a simple, straightforward *gender-free* definition
of rape, including but not limited to forcible genital copulation (pg
425). She argues that the victim's prior sexual history is
irrelevant. She does admit that the victim's prior sexual history
with the defendant may be relevant. She argues that a prior sexual
history should not be considered as carte blanche for later sex (e.g.,
that marital rape can occur). She then goes on to say:
``A modern perception of sexual assault that views the crime
strictly as an injury to the victim's bodily integrity, and not as
an injury to the purity or chastity of man's estate, must normalize
the penalties for such an offense and bring them in line more
realistically with the penalties for aggravated assault, the crime
to which a sexual assault is most closely related.'' (pg 425)
Even though up to this point, she had made it clear that rape fell
somewhere between aggravated assault and robbery in terms of the
amount of violence used, I was not expecting this. She goes on to
argue that the severity of the penalty should be based on:
* the severity of objective physical damage
* the manner in which the assault was accomplished (e.g., with a
gun, the number of rapists)
* any permanent physical damage or lasting phsycological damage
She also discusses how rape should be handled with children and with
the tricky ages between childhood and adulthood. All of this is a
gem; I would happily distribute copies of pages 422 to 439 as far and
wide as I could if there weren't copyright laws.
Pornography is attacked in this book, as one would expect. This has
been a long and continuing point of discussion in feminist circles;
this book was certainly one of the earliest that detailed the case
against pornography. I'm not particularly convinced by the argument
given here, but then I'm in the ``pornography is just a symptom, let's
concentrate on real problems'' camp. S&M is likewise attacked here; I
disagree with her argument because she does not consider nor discuss
*real*, consensual S&M. I have no quarrel with the objection to
non-consensual S&M, but this is not the whole story of S&M.
A definite lack in this book is the consideration of non-traditional
rape: she dismissed female-on-male rape even though that does happen
(under the purview of coercive rape) because the only authoritian view
she subscribes to is that of male over female, even though there are
situations, especially adult over child, where the female will be in
authority. She also discussed male-on-male rape only in the context
of prison. Female-on-female rape is not even considered.
There are so many good points brought up in this book that I've had to
leave them some of them out for room's sake in this review. To
summarize, the book is worth reading; she even explodes some of the
myths about *herself* in it, but you have to pick through a certain
amount of dross. I would assign the book historical importance.
Certainly there is much in the book that it could do without: if you
took out the polemic, you would be left with an excellent book.
There is no king who has not had a | INTERNET: tittle@ics.uci.edu
slave among his ancestors, and no slave | BITNET: tittle@uci.bitnet
who has not had a king among his. __ | UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucivax!tittle
-- Hellen Keller \/ | USNAIL: POB 4188, Irvine CA 92716gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (05/08/91)
In article <4298.673580348@blanche.ics.uci.edu> (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes: >the anti-feminists denouncing it as a virulently anti-male piece of >propoganda. The book is neither. In *your* opinion. >that I was hesitant about reading this. I was surprised to find, for >example, that a substantial portion of the book is composed of >compiling a history and background to rape. ^^^^^^^ *Selective* history. >not taken too much out of context. It is worth noting, however, that >the bulk of the outrageous quotes are found in the first chapter and a >half of the book. *I* found them all over the book. I did not quote anything from the first two chapters in my answer - to demonstrate this point. >years ago. As such, it is a landmark work and the influence of its >thought appears in much of today's debates, even among those who most >ferociously denounce her. I'm excluded. >It is therefore an important book and should be read. Agree. >The first two chapters discuss the ``mass psychology of rape'' in >which Brownmiller assesses the effect that the existence of rape has >on our society. >discusses rape during wartime, showing the extent of rape in war and >how it fits into the general paradigm of ``the conqueror''. Let's quote her: #When men are men, slugging it out among themselves, conquering new land, #subjugating new people, driving toward victory, *unquestionably* there #shall be some raping. The thesis in this chapter is, in *my* opinion, that "When men are men, ... *unquestionably* there shall be some raping." Brownmiller has no fucking idea what war really means, for *men*, and what kind of hell it is, for *men*. Her claim is: #War provides men with the perfect psychologic backdrop to give vent #to their contempt of women. The very maleness of the military - the #brute power of weaponry exclusive to their hands, the spiritual #bonding of men and arms, the manly discipline of orders given and #orders obeyed, the simple logic of the hierarchical command - confirms #for men what they long suspected, that women are peripheral, irrelevant #to the world that counts, passive spectators to the action in #the center ring. To me, most feminist "analysis" of men seems as stupid as Freud's analysis of women. In both cases the refusal to treat the other sex as quite similar human beings, and not as a n alien entity, is the real message of the "analysis". >She also >shows the extent to which rape is sidelined in these same histories: This is *selective* editing of history. She does not bother to give a background of what went around. The USSR lost 15-20 million people in WWII, most of them men, but Brownmiller really believes that one can give an analysis of rape in that war without explaining how massive death influences men. She has no idea what being drafted, being forced to fight, being in death danger on regular basis, seeing your best friends dying and seeking revenge influence men. Her idea of understanding men is "put them under *heavy* pressure, count all the bad things they do (while ignoring everything else), and then call it `typical men's behavior.'" If one wants to know what really happened in WWII then he should read real history books, or witnesses *full* accounts like the uncensored version of "Babii Yar" or Ka Tzetnik books. If one wants to *ignore* the background and pick only the facts that fit the feminist theory then she should read "Against Our Will". >the defeated side will have always been the one that raped Also killed. For some reason a large number of dead men does not bother Brownmiller and Cindy as much as a large number of raped women. The traditionalists and the feminists have a similar view on that matter. Anyway, take a look in Brownmiller's refusal to participate in anti-war demonstrations: #As a woman totally committed to the feminist cause I received several #requests during this time to march, speak and "bring out my sisters" #to antiwar demonstrations "to show women's liberation solidarity with #with the peace movement," and my response was that if the peace movement #cared to raise the issue of rape and prostitution in Vietnam, #I would certainly join in. Just think about the situation: Young men are *afraid* of being drafted and being sent to death (since "Against Our Will" had not been published, they did not know that war is good for them...), they organized demonstration. Brownmiller refused to help because she thought that there were other issues that should have the same important to these scared young men - prostitution in Vietnam. I think that it shows "I don't give a damn about men" attitude, Cindy does not even bother herself to mention such issues. *I* think that the book is very Politically Correct in the meaning it has today. The young men who are in a danger of death are "bad guys" but there is plenty of understanding to the "right" minorities. E.g. when the rapes in Congo went on: #When Congolese forces began celebrating independence in July, 1960, #by raping Belgian women, including nuns, and a few scattered accounts #appeared in the papers, my attitude was one of disbelief. I chalked #up the stories to fraudant rumors, basically racist, designed to #embarrass the cause of Patrice Lumumba, hero and martyr of Congo #self-determination. ...................................................................... #..., and my views remain unchanged as far as Lumumba is concerned. #I still believe that he was the hope of Congo. The point is that a person takes control, rapes happens under his control and he does not really try to stop them; Brownmiller is looking for excuses for him because he belongs to the "good people" by some Politically Correct standard. Similar thing we see in her description of Scottsboro. A white woman gave a testimony, under an oath, in several trials, that some black men raped her. She lied, but Brownmiller does not blame a *woman* for something like that: #It was a white man's game that was played out in the Scottsboro trials, #with black men and white women as movable pawns, and white men judged #iterracial rape according to their own particular property code. The women lied, and men were sentenced to death because they lied, but Brownmiller just looking for excuses for them. The same woman who expects all men to have high moral values after years of *fear* in war and army, looking for excuses for a damn liar of the appropriate sex. >a discussion of gang rape, and the function of rape in prison. A >point that Brownmiller is at pains to illustrate throughout her book, >that rape is a crime of *violence* and not sex, is beautifully made in >this section. For example, in prison, the systematic raping of smaller >and more vulnerable men exactly parallels raping of women in society >at large. In *my* opinion the issue in prison rape is not so much violence as control. The state can stop (or greatly reduce) prison raping, but it does almost nothing. It is a *good* tool to terrorize men and to cause them to be really scared from jail, but Brownmiller or Cindy just can't see it that way. I wonder if any of them have ever *talked* with a man who was *scared* of jail because of rapes. >the tricky ages between childhood and adulthood. All of this is a >gem; I would happily distribute copies of pages 422 to 439 as far and >wide as I could if there weren't copyright laws. I wonder if her down-play of men's fears of false accusation or #The case against pornography and the case against toleration of #prostitution are central to the fight against rape, [page 438] bothered you even a little. >against pornography. I'm not particularly convinced by the argument >given here, but then I'm in the ``pornography is just a symptom, let's >concentrate on real problems'' camp. Willingness to cut other's people freedom of speech to achieve your goals is a real problem, in *my* opinion, but it does not bother Cindy. >S&M is likewise attacked here; I >disagree with her argument because she does not consider nor discuss >*real*, consensual S&M. Cindy, what you say is *not* true. Why can't you check "sadomasochism in the index before you give such claim? #Within the current Gay Liberation Movement there is a boisterous #minority contained within the outposts of leather bars that would #like to see consensual sadomasochism, including the paraphernalia of #whips and handcuffs, accepted as a civil-libertarian right, .................................................................. #Hardly by accident, sadomasochism has always been defined by male #and female terms. It has codified by those who see in sadism a #twisted understanding of their manhood, and it has been accepted #by those who see in masochism the abuse and pain that is synonymous #with Woman. For this reason alone sadomasochism shall always #remain a reactionary antithesis to women's liberation. Aside from all the lies, the bottom line is obvious: to achieve women's liberation feminists like Brownmiller should decide what is the Politically Correct way for gay *men* to have sex. This is just one more example of the propaganda tools in the book. First show how bad rape is, and then give zillion demands that should be accepted to stop rape. If someone rejects them then he is pro-rape. >A definite lack in this book is the consideration of non-traditional >rape: she dismissed female-on-male rape even though that does happen It is not a lack, it is part of the thesis: What do you think that Brownmiller means when she says: #Pornography, like rape, is a male inversion. [Page 443] Saying that women can rape (or enjoy porno) is just an anti-thesis to the traditional-feminist-sexist view of women as pure people. >Certainly there is much in the book that it could do without: if you >took out the polemic, you would be left with an excellent book. If you took out the junk almost nothing will left, in *my* opinion. I prefer to move this discussion to a non-moderated forum. Follow-up is directed to soc.men, >There is no king who has not had a | INTERNET: tittle@ics.uci.edu Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "WAVMP has yet to make any public statements in support of gay rights, sex education in schools, birth control and abortion, children's right to sexual information and freedom, decriminalization of prostitution or civil rights of sexual minorities. They continue to grow larger to grow larger, more powerful and more pro-censorship and antisex in their positions. Few members of the liberal press will risk opposing or criticizing them because they travel under the protective, self-applied label `feminist'. It is obvious that no one in the conservative press will oppose them, either - unless they get too public about having a large lesbian membership." -- ("AMONG US, AGAINST US the new puritans", Pat Califia)
tittle@zola.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore) (05/10/91)
I have only one thing to say and this is it: I stopped debating with Hillel Gazit quite some time ago; my refusal to respond should not be taken as tacit agreement or disagreement with him. --Cindy
nadel@aero-c (05/10/91)
I agree that Cindy should not attempt to debate Hillel over whether or not Hillel's comments are correct - Hillel should simply provide his own review of the book rather than trying to engage Cindy in a shouting match. I genuinely doubt that Hillel has read the book, and I will admit that I haven't, so there is no question in anyones mind. If he has, he is certainly free to provide a -review- rather than some ranting about what is wrong with Cindy's review. "Against Our Wills" is a highly touted book, and based on any objective review, isn't worth the effort to read. There are many better examples of feminist literature where the author isn't attempting to further some agenda that all men are evil. The issue that I concern myself with in this case is the agenda of the author. There are many valid points to be made about rape, and certainly the author is well read on these. But she clearly (from the reviews and exerpts that I have read) misses many very crucial points. The first is that the vast majority of men find rape to be repulsive and that the vast majority of men are simply not rapists. The second is that the image of `woman as victim' is not empowering. Any case of `date rape' that is not as violent as `real rape' is, IMHO, clear evidence that women are taught by society that they are there to be victimized. The message I see is "Don't resist, don't struggle, you are supposed to be a victim", and as a survivor of sexual abuse and violent abuse by my ex-spouse, de-programming yourself from the role of the victim is the first step in ceasing to be one. Brownmiller begins by creating this image of men as hordes of wandering rapists, and spoils any chance for an objective discourse on the causes of preventions of rape. The notions that come out of `men as rapists' modes of thinking include such absurdities as men crossing the street when they see a woman coming, lest her insecure fears be brought to the surface. The message is not one of self-confidence and self-assertiveness for women, but rather fear and loathing of men. There are men and women alike that are expressing their existence by the ways that they have been made into victims. Certainly there are oppurtunistic women and men that prey on such people, but that doesn't make all men or all women either victims or oppressors. Brownmiller and others create this image that all men are oppressors and all women are victims, even in the face of evidence that men and women are individuals falling somewheres on a continuum between victim and oppressor, with all manner of twists, quirks, and psychological behaviors inbetween. The bin I put Brownmiller, et al, into is `oppressor as victim', where the oppressor justifies their behavior based on their perception of themselves as victims. "You did it to me, now I get to do it to you." I appreciated Cindy's review, because it does provide me with further evidence that the box isn't worth the trouble to read. I didn't appreciate Hillel's response; if he wants to provide us with reasoned thoughts, fine. Let's see the Hillel Gazit version of the book. This time, sans personal attacks and petty arguments.
dhw@iti.org (David H. West) (05/17/91)
In article <1991May15.144955.22072@aero.org> John Haugh writes: >[...] the image of `woman as victim' is not empowering. This is very important, IMO. A radical feminist (her term) that I knew, who now teaches Women's Studies at a large university, used to drive me crazy with her strong commitment to the view that, in some (universal?) sense, women "are" (as opposed to "too often are/were") victims, oppressed etc. It may be possible that such a belief could serve as a useful source of energizing anger, but I don't see how it can be the basis for a coherent vision of ongoing improvement. -David West dhw@iti.org
farmerl@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (lisa ann farmer) (05/17/91)
In article <1991May15.144955.22072@aero.org> John Haugh writes: > >author. There are many valid points to be made about rape, and certainly >the author is well read on these. But she clearly (from the reviews and >exerpts that I have read) misses many very crucial points. The first is >that the vast majority of men find rape to be repulsive and that the vast >majority of men are simply not rapists. The second is that the image of I think that most men find "stranger" rape repulsive but date rape is a different matter. According to a study done by Dr. Mary P. Koss, a good per- centage of the men surveyed believed certain things could be expected if they paid for dinner, etc. There were questions designed in such a way that would find out if the men had raped without using the word rape. They would answer yes to these questions but no to the questions containing the word rape. I would direct you to the book _I never called it rape_ by Robin Warshaw for more info on this study. Lisa farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.edu "If people want to make war they should make a colour war and paint each other's cities up in the night in pinks and greens." Yoko Ono (_Louder than Words_)
zrra07@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Randall R. Appleton) (05/18/91)
In article <14915@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>, farmerl@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (lisa ann farmer) writes: |> |> I think that most men find "stranger" rape repulsive but date rape is a |> different matter. According to a study done by Dr. Mary P. Koss, a good per- |> centage of the men surveyed believed certain things could be expected if they |> paid for dinner, etc. There were questions designed in such a way that would |> find out if the men had raped without using the word rape. They would answer |> yes to these questions but no to the questions containing the word rape. I |> would direct you to the book _I never called it rape_ by Robin Warshaw for |> more info on this study. |> Lisa |> farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.edu |> Do you know any men who have, even once, engaded in data-rape but don't call it that? I bet you have known many men (50 or 100 or so) over your life, but I *guess* that not one of them has ever date-raped someone without realizing it. I mearly point this out for the following reason. If *you* don't know any men who do this, and *I* don't know any men who do this, then they must not be as common as you seem to think. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen (really, I`m not). I am just saying that men who unknowingly date-rape are not as common as you seem to think. -Randy
ge@mcnc.org (George Entenman) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May15.144955.22072@aero.org> writes: > "Against Our Wills" is a highly touted book, and based on any objective > review, isn't worth the effort to read. There are many better examples of > feminist literature where the author isn't attempting to further some > agenda that all men are evil. It's been over 10 years since I read Susan Brownmiller's Against Our Wills. There may be newer books that are better, but I would like to say why this book was worth reading at the time and what I learned from it. For me the book makes two very important points: 1. Most contributers to this newsgroup seem to agree that rape is a crime of violence, not sexuality. I would submit that we would not believe this if Brownmiller had not written that long, horrible chapter about rape in the military and in prison; about the rape of old women; etc. If the book did no more, it's historical value would be undisputed IMHO. 2. Brownmiller establishes that the social function of rape is to control women. This point was most clearly made in the chapter on popular fiction, where she analyzes pulp novels, men's magazines, comic books, etc. Rape is the punishment that women "deserve" if they are not subservient to their husbands and boyfriends. This does not mean that the husbands or boyfriends do the raping. It is the rapists, the "shock troops" who do that. John Haugh also says that: >Brownmiller and others create this image >that all men are oppressors and all women are victims, >even in the face of evidence that men and women are >individuals falling somewheres on a continuum between >victim and oppressor.... I think that Brownmiller is perfectly aware of this continuum. In my opinion, the point she is making is *not* that all men are rapists, but that all men *benefit* from the actions of rapists. I'm sure that most of the men reading this newsgroup would never rape a woman or force her to have sex in any way. We're nice guys. But I submit that we all *benefit* from rape, whether we wish to or not. We have no more choice in the matter than those of us who are white benefit from living in a racist world. It's not hard to imagine how we "nice guys" benefit. Women need us to escort them at night or in dangerous areas. We fantasize about rescuing grateful women from a rapist (and here I would ask the male readers of this newsgroup to look honestly at themselves). We get to post understanding articles to this newsgroup and to feel accepted and needed by women. And many men benefit from having wives and girlfriends who are not free to move about at night, for example. In summary, Brownmiller's invaluable contribution was to show that rape is violence and that violence is used to keep women "in their place." The criticisms that I have seen in this newsgroup tend to focus on *individuals*, on how "we are not like that", either not afraid (as women) or not rapists (as men). But if we think of Brownmiller as someone who has helped us understand the *social* function of rape, then I believe that we will appreciate her contribution more and feel less threatened as individuals by her book. ########################################################################## # George Entenman (ge@mcnc.org) # # Besta e tu' 5 Bartram Drive # # Se voce' na~o viver Chapel Hill, NC 27514-4405 # # neste mundo.... 919/942-5858 # ##########################################################################
carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) (05/22/91)
In article <7906@alvin.mcnc.org>, ge@mcnc.org (George Entenman) writes: > In my opinion, the point she is making is *not* that all men > are rapists, but that all men *benefit* from the actions of > rapists. > > But I submit that we all *benefit* from rape I disagree with this claim. > It's not hard to imagine how we "nice guys" benefit. Women > need us to escort them at night or in dangerous areas. This is a benefit to the male? That's like saying I benefit from robbery because I get to pay to put extra locks on my door. > We > fantasize about rescuing grateful women from a rapist. Irrelevant. First, it's a fantasy, and doesn't count in reality. Second, if there weren't rapists, we'd fantasize about rescuing them from a robber / killer / etc. Third, how many of the male homosexuals reading this have such fantasies? > We get to post understanding articles to this > newsgroup and to feel accepted and needed by women. This is bogus. Most net males don't post such notes, and therefore clearly do not get this "benefit". Others have no need to be accepted or needed by "women" (there's only 1 woman I need any acceptance from). Still others can be accepted and needed by "women" without having to resort to comforting them about rape. > And many > men benefit from having wives and girlfriends who are not free > to move about at night, for example. Again, this is a _benefit_? I find dealing with this for my wife a burden that I would be rid of without a moment's hesitation. It's like paying insurance premiums - a costly necessity. -- Alan M. Carroll <-- Another casualty of applied metaphysics Epoch Development Team Urbana Il. "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (05/23/91)
----- In article <7906@alvin.mcnc.org> ge@mcnc.org.UUCP (George Entenman) writes: > ... In my opinion, the point she [Brownmiller] is making is > *not* that all men are rapists, but that all men *benefit* > from the actions of rapists. It would be more accurate to say that those who enjoy the attitudes fostered by prevalent rape benefit from it, even if they would never commit it. But this does *not* include all men, nor does it exclude all women. > ... I submit that we all *benefit* from rape, whether we wish > to or not. We have no more choice in the matter than those of > us who are white benefit from living in a racist world. > > It's not hard to imagine how we "nice guys" benefit. Women > need us to escort them at night or in dangerous areas. ... We > get to post understanding articles to this newsgroup and to > feel accepted and needed by women. And many men benefit from > having wives and girlfriends who are not free to move about at > night, for example. What the above analysis misses is that some men (and not all women) view the above social aspects of rape as detriments, rather than benefits. *Some* men may like the fact that their wives' and women friends' freedom of movement is constrained as described above, but others of us dislike this. Indeed, I suspect that one reason many of my activities take place in mostly male enclaves, to my dismay, is precisely the social inhibitions on women, which are enforced in many more ways than rape. A similar point can be made with regard to Mr Entenman's comments on racial discrimination. Whatever comparative advantage I enjoy through this, I believe that we would all be better off if everyone could better exploit their abilities in the economic realm. In this, I include both blacks from poor inner cities in America, and also those of all races who live in less developed countries. (It never ceases to amaze me that some who go to every extreme to help the former also go to extremes to maintain comparative advantage for ourselves over the latter.) Russell
tom@fibermux.com (Tom Dietz) (05/23/91)
In article <7906@alvin.mcnc.org> ge@mcnc.org.UUCP (George Entenman) writes: > >I think that Brownmiller is perfectly aware of this continuum. >In my opinion, the point she is making is *not* that all men >are rapists, but that all men *benefit* from the actions of >rapists. > >I'm sure that most of the men reading this newsgroup would >never rape a woman or force her to have sex in any way. We're >nice guys. > >But I submit that we all *benefit* from rape, whether we wish to >or not. We have no more choice in the matter than those of us >who are white benefit from living in a racist world. > >It's not hard to imagine how we "nice guys" benefit. Women >need us to escort them at night or in dangerous areas. We >fantasize about rescuing grateful women from a rapist (and here >I would ask the male readers of this newsgroup to look honestly >at themselves). We get to post understanding articles to this >newsgroup and to feel accepted and needed by women. And many >men benefit from having wives and girlfriends who are not free >to move about at night, for example. I guess the problem I have with your argument is that I see the attitudes which you have viewed as perpetuating both racism and rape. The logic that I am using here is; if I feel something benefits me, I am all for it, I think that I, as with all people, am selfish, and therefore react positively to things that benefit me. I do not feel that racism benefits me as a white person. I feelt that racism hurts me and society in general. An example would be economic (from a capitalist POV); if a group is discriminated against through hiring and un-fair pay, they do not have money to spend on products and services. The affect is to stiffle the market potential, therefore lowering everybody's standard of living. As for rape, I do not see how having women living in fear of men benefits me, "nice guys", or any other men. If women are afraid of men (in general), does that not also mean women distrust men? and then does it not follow that it is more difficult to build friendships and relationships (assuming this was the benefit to the "nice guys" mentioned); these being built on trust? If the direct victims of racism and rape use the argument that these acts benefit the race and gender that the racist and rapist belong to, how can they expect the support of that group? A much better tactic would be to enlist the support of the (mis)perceived benefactors, through showing how these acts do not benefit them, but harm them. > >########################################################################## ># George Entenman (ge@mcnc.org) # ># Besta e tu' 5 Bartram Drive # ># Se voce' na~o viver Chapel Hill, NC 27514-4405 # ># neste mundo.... 919/942-5858 # >########################################################################## Tom P.S. it was my intent in this response to show how, from a purely selfish point of view, racism and rape harm individual (white men in this case) interest. It was not my intent to dismiss other arguments on the subject.
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (05/23/91)
In article <7906@alvin.mcnc.org> ge@mcnc.org.UUCP (George Entenman) writes: >But I submit that we all *benefit* from rape, >whether we wish to or not. I reject this claim. I prefer to sleep with a woman because she wants my body, not because she wants my protection. Rape causes women to be more frighten, more hostile and less friendly. It becomes harder to start a conversation, with a woman especially in the middle of the night. Add to that the fact that women who were raped tend to avoid sex for extended periods of time. The bottom line is that rape reduces the quantity and the quality of friendly sex which is available to men (and women). The follow-up is directed to talk.rape. [As long as the subject is on discussion of feminist analysis of rape (eg, whether or not men benefit from rape), it is appropriate here. Followups that start to stray off from that should go to talk.rape. Those wishing to discuss specifically with Gazit should probably go to talk.rape whether or not the subject stays on topic for soc.feminism. --CTM]
jfh@cs.utexas.edu (John F Haugh II) (05/25/91)
In article <7906@alvin.mcnc.org> you write: >In article <1991May15.144955.22072@aero.org> I wrote: > >Brownmiller and others create this image > >that all men are oppressors and all women are victims, > >even in the face of evidence that men and women are > >individuals falling somewheres on a continuum between > >victim and oppressor.... > >I think that Brownmiller is perfectly aware of this continuum. >In my opinion, the point she is making is *not* that all men >are rapists, but that all men *benefit* from the actions of >rapists. All men most certainly do not benefit from rape. Rape places on men's shoulders this imagined burden of protecting women from an unlikely event. Yes, I do understand that roughly 1 in 4 women will be raped or sexually abused in their lifetimes. However, a similiarly large number of men will be the victims of violent crimes, as well as victims of sexual abuse. As others have pointed out, aggrevated assault is 10 times more frequent than rape, and most of the victims are male. And not that surprising, is that men stand a 1 in 6 chance of being sexually abused. I have been the victim of numerous violent crimes, including sexual abuse, spousal abuse (battered husband), mugging, armed robbery, etc. What stopped the pattern of abuse for me was to stop viewing myself as a victim - the last violent act ever commited against me was by a young man that tried to steal my car, with me in it. At that point I decided that I had been a victim long enough, and fought back. He is now serving 14 years (unless he has been parolled) in prison. The entire experience, of confronting my attacker and winning, through to the trial and his conviction, empowered me to stop being a victim. Except for the sexual abuse and the spouse abuse, all of the violent acts against me were commited by blacks. Should I say that "all blacks benefit from violence against whites" since whites tend to stay away from inner city areas? Since my sexual abusers were homo- or bi- sexuals, should I say that "all homosexuals benefit from sexual abuse against heterosexuals"? How about "all women benefit from husband battering"? Some men do benefit from rape, some women benefit from rape as well. If you have ever been a habitual victim, you might understand this. Think of all the attention you can get if you can just this once get beaten up =really= bad. How much more sympathy could you get if you only got two black eyes instead of one? The first act of violence against your person should be the last act. A young woman at the local corner store was recently beaten by her boyfriend. I told her my experience, and tried to provide some emotional support, much as any concerned friend might. I would ask her from time to time if she was doing OK. After some time she seemed to be doing perfectly well - but she is back with this same guy all over again. Who is benefitting from this cycle? The people around her that are encouraging her to get away from this abusive boyfriend, or the woman who is getting the sympathy and attention of her friends? I would say that some of each - the friends get to play the concerned friend and the woman gets to be the poor victim. In any victim/oppressor situation like the above, unless you actively seek to break the cycle of abuse, you are at least passively supporting it. The real friends are the ones that build up her self-confidence so she sees that she doesn't have to associate with this guy, not the ones that pat her on the head and tell her how terrible her boyfriend is. In the case of any violent crime, the best thing the individual can do is avoid genuinely dangerous situations (such as any location called "Rape Alley"), and spread the word that violence will not be tolerated, then take steps to provide for a credible deterance. Get a gun, take a self-defense class, and be vocal about it.
mcg@phobos.cis.ksu.EDU (05/29/91)
In article <1991May17.231746.23508@trc.amoco.com> uunet!apctrc!zrra07@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Randall R. Appleton) writes: > >In article <14915@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>, farmerl@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (lisa ann farmer) writes: >|> >|> I think that most men find "stranger" rape repulsive but date rape is a >|> different matter. According to a study done by Dr. Mary P. Koss, a good >|> percentage of the men surveyed believed certain things could be expected >|> if they paid for dinner, etc. There were questions designed in such a >|> way that would find out if the men had raped without using the word rape. >|> They would answer yes to these questions but no to the questions >|> containing the word rape. I would direct you to the book >|> _I never called it rape_ by Robin Warshaw for more info on this study. >|> Lisa >|> farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.edu > >Do you know any men who have, even once, engaded in data-rape but >don't call it that? I bet you have known many men (50 or 100 or so) >over your life, but I *guess* that not one of them has ever date-raped >someone without realizing it. >I mearly point this out for the following reason. If *you* don't know >any men who do this, and *I* don't know any men who do this, then they >must not be as common as you seem to think. >I'm not saying that it doesn't happen (really, I`m not). I am just >saying that men who unknowingly date-rape are not as common as you >seem to think. >-Randy I know of a man at least once who engaged in date-rape and refuses to call it that. He's my neighbor and still is.