eves» it. »p> It was women's «fear of an open season of rape» which led them to strike the «Risky bargain» of «conjugal relationship» and was the «Single causative factor in the original subjugation of woman by man. »Since Brownmiller wrote, there has been a wealth of anthropological studies which throw serious doubt on the assertion that women have always been oppressed and therefore have suffered male violence. She cannot be blamed for ignorance of these (although those who continue to propagate her ideas can), however she was not ignorant of evidence which contradicted her statements, and even included it in the book. p> For instance, some attempts to understand what the earliest human societies would look like have been based on studies of non-human primates, extrapolating from them to build a picture of human evolution. Brownmiller quotes Jane Goodall, who studied wild chimpanzees and found the female did not accept every male who approached her. Even persistent males were not known to rape. Brownmiller also quotes Leonard Williams 'Man and Monkey which concluded «in monkey society there is no such thing as rape, prostitution, or even passive consent. »Brownmiller claims that because human females are sexually active any time, unlike other primates, men are capable of rape. The implication is that monkeys and chimps are physically incapable of rape. However Sally Slocum found that non-human primates «appear not to attempt coitus (when the female is unreceptive), regardless of physiological ability.» p> This might seem an esoteric discussion in an article about violence against women today. However, the idea that men are violent by nature and women passive and nurturing, always an idea of ​​the right wing, is now widely held in feminist circles. So we need to be aware there are two quite distinct strands of feminist thought on the question. The right wing argument was backed up by the anthropological theory that the dawn of humanity was made possible by «man the hunter.» From the mid-sixties there were challenges to this interpretation. New research - much of it, but not all, by feminists - shows that there is the possibility of humans living in harmony and that violence towards women is explained by social and material developments rather than by biology.
The other strand, to which de Beauvoir and Brownmiller contributed, can sound radical because it criticis e s men's violence and stereotypes of masculine aggression rather than glorifying them. But let's be clear, their ideas are just as reactionary as the old В«man the hunterВ» myth because fundamentally they accept the same premise: men are naturally predatory and violent, more capable of dominating than women. Some of Brownmiller's argument is simply dishonest. She quotes the anthropologist Margaret Mead about a society where rape was unknown; В«the Arapesh (do not) have any conception of male nature that might make rape understandable to them.В» This clearly raises the concept of rape as a social phenomenon and not simply the result of men's physiological attributes, apart from the fact that it proves rape has not always been a feature of society. But Brownmiller blithely skips over this inconvenient fact to go on to societies where violence towards women is extreme with no attempt to explain the differences. p> When she does attempt an explanation of the absence of rape, Brownmiller is not beyond repeating sexist, elitist attitudes to women's experiences. Mrs Rowlandson, wife of an ordained minister, was taken captive by American Indians in 1676. p> She did well to add the last sentence, but it does not save her from the feminist author three centuries later. Brownmiller admits this story was В«not atypicalВ»; she quotes a historian of 1842 who concluded the Indians only learnt to mistreat women by contact with whites. But to admit that Indian men did not rape and abuse women, even those from an invading, pillaging society, would be to admit rape may not be explained by the fact that man discovered at the dawn of time В«that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear. В»Instead, she dismisses the evidence by an appeal to the prejudice Mrs Rowlandson foresaw:В« the natural reluctance on the part of women to admit that sexual abuse has occurred. В»She does not attempt to explain why women were less reluctant in the later period. She even upholds the old wowserist idea that women do not seek sexual activity, they only have it thrust on them by disgusting males: she dismisses Fanny Kelly's description of В«several braves who went out of their way to do her favoursВ» as В«apparent innocence.В»
В«Rape in warfare (says Brownmiller) is not bounded by definitions of which wars are 'just' or 'unjust'.В» The examples she gives are the В«German HunВ» (presumably it is acceptable to be racist about men) in Belgium...
