Comments Elsewhere

Thanks, ringfingers, for posting this article. It’s good stuff. However, some quibbles of historical detail:

“Susan Brownmiller, in her important book Against Our Wills [sic], suggested that men may be genetically predisposed to rape, a notion that has been echoed by Andrea Dworkin.”

But neither Susan Brownmiller nor Andrea Dworkin says anything of the sort. In fact, Brownmiller specifically argues against the thesis in her review of Thornhill and Palmer’s sociobiological book on rape: http://www.susanbrownmiller.com/html/review-thornhill.html

The charge against Susan Brownmiller is frequently repeated in en passant criticisms of her work, but I can’t find evidence for it anywhere in the book. It seems to be based on the first chapter, in which Brownmiller says that “Man’s structural capacity to rape and woman’s corresponding structural vulnerability are as basic to the physiology of both our sexes as the primal act of sex itself.” (13-14) But this is just to say that it is a fact of physiology that it is anatomically possible for men to rape women; and that is obviously true, since anatomically impossible things don’t usually happen. Brownmiller’s clear argument throughout AGAINST OUR WILL is that rape is a political act by men against women, not a genetic predisposition. She writes: “Man’s discovery 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.” (14-15)

Andrea Dworkin does not believe this either. Here is what she says in “I Want A Twenty-Four Hour Truce During Which There Is No Rape”: “I want to see this men’s movement make a commitment to ending rape because that is the only meaningful commitment to equality. It is astonishing that in all our worlds of feminism and antisexism we never talk seriously about ending rape. Ending it. Stopping it. No more. No more rape. In the back of our minds, are we holding on to its inevitability as the last preserve of the biological? Do we think that it is always going to exist no matter what we do? All of our political actions are lies if we don’t make a commitment to ending the practice of rape. … I came here today because I don’t believe that rape is inevitable or natural. If I did, I would have no reason to be here. If I did, my political practice would be different than it is. Have you ever wondered why we are not just in armed combat against you? It’s not because there’s a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence.” (see: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.html ; she also addresses biological determinism at http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIID.html)

Also: “Feminists like Irigaray, MacKinnon and Dworkin advocate legislative reforms, without criticizing the oppressive nature of the state.” I don’t know anything about Irigary’s writings on the state, so I can’t say anything about her; but Dworkin and MacKinnon have both worked for legal reforms while also critiquing the State as a central element of male power. (Dworkin, for example, said “There is not a feminist alive who could possibly look to the male legal system for real protection from the systematized sadism of men.”)

The real history of radical feminism is all too often obscured by the patina of distortions that its critics have brushed over it; unfortunately it sometimes also trips up those of us who are sympathetic and want to get a clearer understanding of it. I hope that the article you’ve posted has helped toward this goal; and I hope that my comments have helped things along a bit further.

Keep up the good work.