Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!sophie From: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Re RAPE, etc.../ "understanding" horrible behavior and people Message-ID: <1786@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 19:33:31 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.1786 Posted: Mon Aug 12 19:33:31 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 13-Aug-85 03:19:03 EDT References: <739@udenva.UUCP> <540@hou2g.UUCP> <3014@hplabsb.UUCP> <6443@ucla-cs.ARPA> <1698@mnetor.UUCP> <184@epicen.UUCP> Reply-To: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 102 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