Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!batcomputer!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!rex!wuarchive!usc!aero-c!nadel
From: nadel@aero-c
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Book Review: Against Our Will
Message-ID: <1991May15.144955.22072@aero.org>
Date: 10 May 91 15:54:59 GMT
Sender: news@aero.org
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Lines: 54
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org


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.