Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero-c!nadel
From: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Book Review: Against Our Will
Summary: The review told me more about Cindy than about Brownmiller.
Message-ID: <673671343@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Date: 8 May 91 02:55:44 GMT
References: <4298.673580348@blanche.ics.uci.edu>
Sender: news@aero.org
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Piranha Club
Lines: 242
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org


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)