'Round about it goes ....
Bells said:
Of course it is. And asking for men to take responsibility for their actions and actually have some morals is well, well it goes against the grain, doesn't it?
Well, the question might be one of what constitutes responsibility. As I recall, given to consider women's precaution's against men's responsibilities, many people could only consider the precaution theory. And then, given the question of how to change masculine conduct and outlooks, there were some who were completely incapable of considering the subject, and whined, "What about women!"
And yet in these discussions about sexual conduct and responsibility, we have recently encountered an anti-feminist voice who resents the very implications of this open-ended precaution theory. And, guess what? He's angry at the feminists.
Our friend
Randwolf provided the link, and even voiced some agreement with the author, David Byron. However, our man Randwolf did
not address this particular aspect. Mr. Byron wrote of the proposition that all men are rapists,
Now admittedly that quote is representative of the book, and the book was a thinly veiled piece of feminist doctrine, and the phrase was picked up by real women of the time, and the book was the most popular selling feminist book of its time, and continues to sell well today... however a quick internet search for the phrase reveals that it is currently mostly used by critics of feminism and by feminist pages with a "not" in front. As in "not all men are rapists". Interesting that some feel this needs to be said... quite reminiscent of the way the KKK explicitly say they oppose violence...
Correction: It seems Marilyn French also used the phrase in her own voice in an interview, but I'm trying track this source down.
At any rate their seems to be some distancing from this phrase by feminists !
Nevertheless I want to use this phrase as an example of the endemic anti-male sexism within the feminist movement. Not so much the use of that precise word-for-word phrase, which seems to be graduating from a rallying cry of feminists, to be come more a rallying cry of their critics, but the presumption of the general concept of male = rapist, or "all men are potential rapists", for which it has become a symbol.
Let's begin by stating the obvious. Anyone who believes this is a bigot. 'All men are rapists' is taking one of the worst crimes recognized and saying it represents the universal nature of men. It is saying men are evil. It is also saying women are universal victims who should fear men. Both clear signs of hate. But is this hate really representative of most of feminist thought?
(
Byron, boldfaced accent added)
Well, what do you know? It seems to me that
casting men as robotic rapists, pure sex machines, animals who don't ask permission and are helpless before their natural impulses, was put forth recently by one of our members as a reason to pile the burden of men's conduct onto a woman's conscience and outlook. Turns out Mr. Byron might be protesting against something advocated by the misogynists. You know, complaining that feminism bothered to take the note in the first place.
But in taking "appropriate" or "prudent" precautions, a woman must necessarily start from the presumption that any man she encounters is a potential rapist. Apparently, as some of our neighbors here at Sciforums would have it, what Byron would call hateful and bigoted is, in fact, a commonsense, reasonable and prudent
obligation of a woman.
It's a ...
curious ... cycle.
____________________
Notes:
Byron, David. "All Men Are Rapists". Sex War. Viewed July 7, 2008. http://members.tripod.com/feministhate/id51.htm
